Yes and the internet is a different experience in different legal jurisdictions. Do you mind if we stick to the U.S. for our discussion?
Does anything in 230 require unbiased moderation?
Censorship
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
The owners of the actual infrastructure of the internet, ISPs, DNSs, should not be able to discriminate based on any criteria (since they are an actual public utility). Remember the net neutrality thing a while back that I'm sure a lot of the "free speech warriors" here were on the wrong side of?
Beyond that if you put your speech into the marketplace of ideas and marketplace rejects it, then you are out of luck. No participation trophies in the marketplace of ideas, but you can still publish a website at least.
1. No. Because, personally, most of my issues with social media are transgressions that took place in foreign countries. That's why I'm not biting on the R vs D exchanges here. We should hold social media companies accountable for their actions in foreign companies just like we do every other American entity.
2. Yes. Most of the immunity provisions for social media cos have come throuth the courts since social media wasn't even a thing when 230 was crafted. Those same court rulings have placed a "fair and unbiased" restriction on the entitlement.
What is an example of an issue you have?
You are going to have to point me to that (I read the wired article you posted, and read through the case law section of the section 230 wikipedia page, so this isn't me being lazy)
Last edited:
The internet is not a public utility. That notion died when Hillary lost. Any classification or movement in that area has been rolled back.
My question is who is the bigger arbitrator of speech in 2019, the government or social media companies? Where do most of the exchanges of ideas take place?
The Constitution doesn't limit it to state-actors on free speech, a SCOTUS opinion from a hundred odd years ago does. So should we think about including companies like Facebook with state-actors? Do we make a law that says that platforms with x number of users have to act like the state when it comes to the information people exchange?
Legally no, but in reality the internet infrastructure is a text book example of a public utility (capital intensive, commodified, geographic in scale, replication doesn't increase welfare)
Social media, Social media.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
looks to me like it does.
No, I would prefer to nationalize or at least break up any entity where this becomes a legit problem. (and I acknowledge the potential for this to be a real problem, I don't think we are there yet https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/6/1...million-people-united-states-privacy-scandals, and as further evidence I had heard of all the charlatans facebook banned, and I don't use facebook). I think it is an obvious breech of the platform's free speech rights to not allow it to pick and choose the content it hosts and publish.
See, you aren't lazy in the sense that you won't take the time to quote multiple posts and craft multiple answers. It's that that you seem to have complete shit for brains on the analysis side. The picture you are painting is simply inaccurate.
Solid argument
With this type of reward for my effort, it is a wonder why I am ever "lazy" or dismissive of you
Please spend a half hour researching something in good faith so a troll can "fake news" or "whatabout" it away.
It's no wonder. You get your ass handed to you if you actually try, so I guess lazy is your speed. Stay in your lane civil rights champion.
Yeah mega you are really handing me my ass. Keep paying the censors your money, warrior.
Oh I will. I don’t have much choice. It’s crushing to know that makes you think less of me.
Not spending a chunk of my marketing budget on a website I designate as an enemy of free speech is my own personal Valley Forge.
Not spending a chunk of my marketing budget on a website I designate as an enemy of free speech is my own personal Valley Forge.
Chris Hughes = True patriot, calling for actions that will reduce the value of his Facebook stock
Megapoke= Cuck bitch, giving financial support to an enemy of free speech
It’s illuminating to know that this is what you think not getting your ass handed to you looks like.
Some sacrificed all
All sacrificed some (except mega who couldn't even be bothered to quit facebook)
Some sacrificed all
All sacrificed some (except mega who couldn't even be bothered to quit facebook)
Cool analogy bro! Really makes me rethink my life. Ya know?
1. Facebook bans and de-platforms people who did not break the terms and conditions because Zuckerburg doesn't like them.
2. It's pointed out this is a free speech violation
3. It's argued that facebook is a private entity and can do as it pleases (thinking this is a trap for free market "conservatives")
4. It is counter-pointed out that facebook has +1 billion users and is an irreplaceable marketing and networking communication utility.
5. 07 says simple solution is to start an alternative to facebook.
6. It's pointed out google tried that and failed because facebook is clearly an unassailable monopoly.
7. 07 brings up bakers, civil rights and mocks free speech "warriors" for being "cuck bitches" for not sacrificing their businesses because they don't like facebook's recent bannings. Also implies they hate gays if they don't support some asshole's right to endlessly harass a small business owner.
8. 07 and a couple of other nitwits declare thread victory.
9. It stretches into a second day with the humorless and shallow thinking 07 lobbing softballs over the fence, trying and failing to be hurtful with analogies that he believes will piss people off for purposely being in bad taste - continues to sling "cuck bitch" like a basic internet tough guy shielded by anonymity.
10. He believes he is a liberal, but mocks free speech concerns, labeling me a free speech warrior - thinking that is an ironic cutdown.
11. 07's understanding of marketing and free enterprise was on display recently in a healthcare thread where @Medic007 and someone else in the healthcare industry ran train on him for several pages and he hilariously declared the marketing budget for medical offices should be $0.00. And this is the guy who thinks he's making an irrefutable point by claiming I am a "cuck bitch" if I don't sacrifice my business to make protest a free speech issue.
12. Zero understanding of marketing, zero empathy towards small business owners, and zero fvcks given about free speech by this so called liberal.
But yeah, he definitely hasn't had his ass handed to him again. Just ask him.
2. It's pointed out this is a free speech violation
3. It's argued that facebook is a private entity and can do as it pleases (thinking this is a trap for free market "conservatives")
4. It is counter-pointed out that facebook has +1 billion users and is an irreplaceable marketing and networking communication utility.
5. 07 says simple solution is to start an alternative to facebook.
6. It's pointed out google tried that and failed because facebook is clearly an unassailable monopoly.
7. 07 brings up bakers, civil rights and mocks free speech "warriors" for being "cuck bitches" for not sacrificing their businesses because they don't like facebook's recent bannings. Also implies they hate gays if they don't support some asshole's right to endlessly harass a small business owner.
8. 07 and a couple of other nitwits declare thread victory.
9. It stretches into a second day with the humorless and shallow thinking 07 lobbing softballs over the fence, trying and failing to be hurtful with analogies that he believes will piss people off for purposely being in bad taste - continues to sling "cuck bitch" like a basic internet tough guy shielded by anonymity.
10. He believes he is a liberal, but mocks free speech concerns, labeling me a free speech warrior - thinking that is an ironic cutdown.
11. 07's understanding of marketing and free enterprise was on display recently in a healthcare thread where @Medic007 and someone else in the healthcare industry ran train on him for several pages and he hilariously declared the marketing budget for medical offices should be $0.00. And this is the guy who thinks he's making an irrefutable point by claiming I am a "cuck bitch" if I don't sacrifice my business to make protest a free speech issue.
12. Zero understanding of marketing, zero empathy towards small business owners, and zero fvcks given about free speech by this so called liberal.
But yeah, he definitely hasn't had his ass handed to him again. Just ask him.
Mega, I am not mocking "free speech warrior" because I think it is unworthy thing to aspire to. I think true "free speech warriors" are admirable. I am mocking you, the cuck bitch who won't make the tiny sacrifice of boycotting Facebook for ever comparing yourself to any type of warrior.
I'll get back to the rest of your retconning of this conversation at a later date
As is clearly the right of facebook
No it isn't. Those people are free to speak just not on facebook. It would be a free speech violation to force facebook to host speech they find objectionable. When did the right to free speech entail the right to be heard?
Yes. It is a really good trap.
You don't know what a utility is.
Which is clearly the free market solution that requires no government coercion.
Is facebook the only social network? I could have sworn there are more. It should be easy enough to assail that monopoly if they are shutting out voices that have a following that can't be heard elsewhere. What you are conceding is that the snake oil salesmen banned from facebook have lost in the marketplace of ideas so badly that people won't even bother to merely sign up for a social media network that promises to include them.
Wrong. MegaPoke brings up bakers
Sorry but this is the very definition of capitulation.
I wasn't trying to piss "people" off, I was trying to piss you off, because you should feel bad. 1. your conception of free speech is stupid and unworkable 2. you are a cuck bitch who won't take any action.
See my previous post. A person with real free speech concerns has to have a workable conception of free speech.
Talk about a confirmation bias funnel. The guy who insisted healthcare can't be cheaper despite all other countries with price controls being cheaper and the other guy who called GE's healthcare division a boat anchor most definitely didn't run any trains.
Where is the lie?
You are. And to call yourself a free speech warrior when the real warriors laid their lives on the line is such a joke.
I am positive I understand marketing better than you think healthcare marketing is necessary. Zero empathy to you, who deserves no empathy. And enough fvcks given about free speech that insiste on that phrase having a coherent meaning.
Last edited:
Yeah I definitely am that. Huge free speech fanboy. In fact, I'm such a fanboy of the first Amendment, I am planning on getting some Constitution themed tats later this year to incorporate into sleeve or half sleeve designs with music stuff. So if you want to hold me accountable for doing something, how about that? It's either that or a new guitar at this point.
I realize you enjoy being an asshole. So do I. But if you are going to accuse me of something (claiming to be a "warrior", throwing "liberal" around) try to make sure you aren't full of shit.
Let's boil the facebook argument down to this for us.... Utility or not. It's a semantics argument. Does it meet every definition of a utility? No. Is there a realistic alternative to using it for any small business? No.
Facebook is an essential platform for me to promote my business. 99.9% of my income comes from my business. The rest comes from music which I also have to promote on facebook. Semantics aside, it's a utility for me and unlike some other utilities (wifi, cell phone service), there is no other option.
There is literally no option if I want either to be a successful promotion. For me, as a small business owner and an artist - facebook is a critical element of me being able to keep my studio doors open. My placement on Google is as well. Boycotting these things is career suicide. It cannot be done. So, when you tell me I'm a cuck bitch for not purposely killing my business, it doesn't come across as intellectually honest. Criticize me for anything you want. Some of it is even deserved, but I won't be boycotting the internet platforms where literally everyone is (facebook, Instagram (facebook lite) ) and where everyone looks for services (google).
Boycotting is for pussies anyway, and I've never been an advocate of boycotting anything or anyone. I consume content from artists all the time who i disagree with. I shot a Snoop Dog concert last month - should I boycott that opportunity based on what you think of me? Of course not. What I would like to see is facebook changing their censorship criteria or at least being consistent about it between different ideologies. Is that too much to ask? Is there no point on this for us to agree or are you just committed to defending facebook because you think "conservatives" are bitching about censorship?
How does forcing facebook to host the brain pill ads fit within a first amendment framework?
Absolutely. I work for a small business with no facebook presence, and booked my wedding photographer with a google search.
wifi and cellphone service aren't utilities. So you point is that facebook has built an extremely valuable marketing tool for you so therefore they shouldn't be able to control the content they host? Help me understand that? Newspapers and yellow pages used to serve a similar function in the digital age, was it some sort of problem when the newpaper wouldn't publish editorial letters about fluoridated water, and the yellow pages wouldn't publish ads from known scammers?
I'm sorry but how would you describe the position of being beholden to google and facebook for your livelihood?
What yeah using the only form of power you have to affect giant corporations is for losers
Why would you boycott snoop dogg?
Well I have bad news for you about the chances of that happening when not censoring affects their bottom line and the people they piss off by censoring thing boycotting is for pussies.
I'm not defending facebook, I personally boycott them. If you want to make an argument for breaking them up or nationalizing them, I'm all ears, but "private companies can't control the content they host if they are also an extremely valuable market tool" is not workable at all and isn't part of an internally consistent framework on free speech.
